A high school social studies teacher with twenty years of service was terminated by a school district after her posting of “inflammatory messages” on Facebook, violating the school district’s policies. The teacher sued, claiming her First Amendment rights were violated. The Seventh Circuit held that the district’s interest in preventing and responding to significant disruption outweighed her free speech claims, upholding the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the district.
Prior to her termination, the teacher had been suspended twice without pay for profane classroom outbursts and received explicit warning of possible dismissal, a notice to remedy, and mandatory counseling. An investigation revealed the teacher made racially and potentially offensive posts on her private Facebook account. Although her account was private, her following included over 80% of former students and other connections to the district, and therefore her posts were seen by other members of the public. The posts quickly circulated within the school community, prompting more than a hundred emails and calls from students, parents, staff, and extensive media attention. After two public board meetings, the board voted to terminate, citing policy violations, loss of trust, and disruption to school operations.
On appeal, the court agreed the speech was speech on matters of public concern but concluded the record showed concrete disruption to school functions, derailed classes and summer school discussions, and substantial diversion of district resources. The teacher’s public-facing role and her decision to share inflammatory content with an audience largely composed of former students made amplification foreseeable; “private” settings did not insulate the posts. Considering this disruption alongside her prior discipline and clear warnings, the court held the district met its burden under the Pickering balancing test and affirmed summary judgment.
This decision illustrates that although public employees retain free speech rights on social media, those rights are not absolute. It highlights the line between private expression and professional responsibilities, providing insight into how public employers may assess employees’ online speech under the First Amendment.
